Madoff spent ~12 years in prison before he died at 82.
They gave him a 150 year sentence for a crime on par-ish with SBF's crimes, because at 70 there is little difference between 20 years and 100 years, so you may as well go for the shock value.
Especially after the disaster that was the evidentiary hearing where he offered some testimony without the jury present. (The judge wanted to see if what he wanted to testify was allowable)
During that testimony (where he was under oath), he rambled, misinterpreted questions, gave evasive answers and generally acted like he did in some interviews.
On the Friday, with the jury present he actually told his life story (to humanize himself) and answered mostly softball questions, before ending his direct with reframing deflections of the evidence and other people's testimony.
That might have been a major consideration before he took the stand, where he perjured himself and showed no remorse.
Now, I'm not sure the judge might not decide "If I'm going to give him what's effectively a life sentence, I might as well make an example", like they did with Madoff.
I don't know, but I very much assume so. He violated his bail already (multiple times) leading to it getting revoked.
The judge also previously said, when asked about whether SBF could remain out of jail during just during his trial after his bail got revoked:
> “Your client in the event of conviction could be looking at a very long sentence. If things begin to look bleak … maybe the time would come when he would seek to flee.”
I don't imagine the judge will give him time to get his affairs in order from outside prison, which is something I understand happens (like it did with Elizabeth Holmes)
As others said, the judge will decide. One of the reasons for the delay is the preparation of the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) that a parole officer will prepare. There's also time to argue about mitigating and exacerbating factors by the lawyers on both sides.
The thrust of my argument is that imposing negative consequences (irrespective of reason) is a form of coercion. There are many things that ought to be coerced, but it is ridiculous to assert in the face of imposed consequences that people aren't being coerced or forced into taking vaccines.
People might not want to state it that strongly and the coercion isn't as strong as what criminals or the government can impose, but it's still someone or someones using their power to enforce behavior on others.
And couching that in phrases like "pricing in those externalities" doesn't change this. In fact it makes it more blatant.
This is a meaningless statement. It pretty much makes the idea of "coercion" impossible.
"The mugger didn't force you give him your money. You could have chosen to say no. You being killed is just you not being free of the consequences of your choice".
Imposing consequences on people is coercing them to make the choice you want them to. None of the consequences mentioned are natural consequences, like getting sick from the disease, but additional consequences someone decided on.
This is a relatively new change though, as in the last year/couple of months. So I wouldn't expect the IRS to have shifted it's treatment. Especially in the context of 2018 taxes.
They gave him a 150 year sentence for a crime on par-ish with SBF's crimes, because at 70 there is little difference between 20 years and 100 years, so you may as well go for the shock value.